Utah Court of Appeals

Can a party appeal a Tax Commission decision in both district court and the Utah Supreme Court? Wasatch County v. Tax Commission Explained

2009 UT App 221
No. 20080732-CA
August 13, 2009
Affirmed

Summary

After the Tax Commission entered a final order, property owners filed a petition for review with the Utah Supreme Court. The County filed a cross-petition seeking affirmative relief in the supreme court, then filed a separate petition for review in district court the next day. The district court dismissed the County’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Analysis

Background and Facts

The dispute began when the Utah State Tax Commission entered a final order affecting Wasatch County and several property owners, including the Osborns. After the Commission’s decision, the property owners filed a petition for review with the Utah Supreme Court. The County responded by filing a cross-petition seeking affirmative relief in the supreme court. The day after filing its cross-petition, the County also filed a separate petition for review in district court. The Osborns moved to dismiss the district court case, arguing that the County had already elected its appellate forum.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the County’s appeal after the County had already filed a cross-petition in the Utah Supreme Court. This required interpreting Utah Code section 59-1-602, which allows aggrieved parties to petition for judicial review “in the district court pursuant to this section, or in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal, applying correctness review to the jurisdictional question. The court agreed that each party may appeal to the court of its choice, but found that the County’s cross-petition “unconditionally petitioned the supreme court for affirmative relief,” thereby exercising its statutory option. Once the County invoked the supreme court’s jurisdiction through its cross-petition, the alternative option of district court review was no longer available. The court rejected arguments that the cross-petition did not qualify as a “petition for judicial review” under the statute.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that parties must make a definitive choice between district court and appellate court review of Tax Commission decisions. Filing a cross-petition seeking affirmative relief in an appellate court constitutes an election that forecloses subsequent district court review. The dissent highlighted the lack of clear procedural guidance in such situations, suggesting that legislative or rulemaking clarification would benefit practitioners navigating these venue elections.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Wasatch County v. Tax Commission

Citation

2009 UT App 221

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20080732-CA

Date Decided

August 13, 2009

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A party that files a cross-petition for affirmative relief in the Utah Supreme Court cannot thereafter invoke district court jurisdiction for review of the same Tax Commission decision.

Standard of Review

Correctness for questions of law regarding subject matter jurisdiction

Practice Tip

When appealing Tax Commission decisions, carefully consider venue choice under Utah Code section 59-1-602 as filing a cross-petition in one court may foreclose review options in another court.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    State v. Schwenke

    November 27, 2009

    Stock certificates bearing the title of stock and possessing typical characteristics of stock constitute securities under the Utah Uniform Securities Act without requiring application of the economic reality test.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Bohman Aggregates v. Gilbert

    April 1, 2021

    The Utah Rules of Professional Conduct apply to pro se attorney-litigants, and violations of Rule 3.4(e) prohibiting assertion of personal knowledge and credibility opinions constitute irregularities justifying a new trial under Rule 59.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.